Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLWRP rev5 FINAL - jkPage | LWRP Consistency - 1 Rev5 LWRP CONSISTENCY The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to include “a summary of the project's consistency with the proposed land uses set forth in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (L WRP).” The DEIS has concluded that “the proposed action is consistent with the stated goals of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP)” (p.14). The Applicant’s analysis in support of that conclusion is presented in DEIS Table 31, which is followed by the conclusion that “[A]s indicated in Table 30 [sic] above, the proposed action is consistent with the relevant policy goals of the Town of Southold LWRP. As such, no significant adverse impacts to coastal resources would be expected” (p. 180). In fact, the Project is not consistent with any of Southold’s LWRP policies. Table 31 presents an incomplete and inaccurate discussion of the Project’s consistency with LWRP in regard to a majority of LWRP policies. A requirement of all LWRPs is that proposed projects “comply with and be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable coastal policies. This is to ensure that multiple coastal policy objectives are advanced to achieve comprehensive benefits, rather than advancing one or more policies or objectives to the detriment of others. For example, while several coastal policies compete with others and competing policies often apply in a wide range of circumstances, the objective through consistency is to ensure that multiple coastal policies are advanced by avoiding conflicts between individual policies. This is different than traditional single purpose environmental or development permit programs, because it is comprehensive and all applicable policies are required to be adhered to” (emphasis in original) (New York Coastal Management Program Consistency Manual, 2010:15). The proposed Project is not consistent with LWRP policies, and is clearly inconsistent with others. The conclusions in the DEIS concerning the Project’s LWRP consistency cannot be supported. LWRP Policy 1: Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. DEIS: “the length and mass of the proposed buildings would not be visibly obtrusive to surrounding properties located along Mattituck Creek. Furthermore, the proposed buildings would be constructed with the same material as the existing buildings (i.e., blue siding with white trim windows and eaves) such that it would blend with the aesthetics of existing development on-site” (DEIS Table 31, p.181). Response: The applicant’s consultants are substituting their own opinion for that of the community. No attempt was made as part of the aesthetic analysis to solicit the opinions of Page | LWRP Consistency - 2 Rev5 property owners within the Project’s viewshed, or recreational users of Mattituck Creek. As noted in comments on the adequacy of the visual impact assessment completed for the Project, because of the significant flaws in that analysis (for example, substituting renderings for photographs to present existing conditions and showing existing structures as stark white when they are blue), any conclusions based on it must be considered suspect. DEIS: “5.51± acres of the existing forested land on the western portion of the subject property would be removed. However, 11.76± acres of forested area on the western portion of the subject property would remain and an additional 1.67± acres of landscaping would be planted” (DEIS Table 31, p.181). Response: How much of the existing forest land would remain on the Project parcel is not relevant. The proposed additional landscaping consists of small immature trees in no way comparable to the trees which will be destroyed by the Project. No mention is made of the Project’s potential adverse impacts to presently permanently preserved open space—the Mill Road Preserve. The Project is clearly inconsistent with Policy 1 in this regard. DEIS: “Upon project implementation, the tree line would be setback for a distance of approximately 500± feet. As indicated on the renderings included in the Appendix Q of this DEIS, the existing visual setting (i.e., maritime use with vegetated upland area) would not be significantly altered” (DEIS Table 31, p.181). Response: As noted above, this is the opinion of the applicant’s consultants based on a faulty visual impact analysis. The DEIS’ use of language suggests that it acknowledges that the visual setting will be altered, but only not to an undefined significant extent in the opinion of the applicant’s consultants. DEIS: “The proposed development . . . would connect to the public water supply through extension of the water main. . . This water main extension would give the seven property owners, identified in Table 12 and discussed in Section 2.2.1 of this DEIS, with the ability to connect to public water but remain served by private wells the opportunity to connect to SCWA and further decrease the amount of water being withdrawn from the aquifer” (DEIS Table 31, p.181). Response: This statement is incorrect. As discussed in more detail in other comments on the proposed water main extension, Table 12 is a list, prepared by the Suffolk County Water Authority, of land parcels located within 500 feet of the Project parcel indicating if a parcel has access to a public water supply and, if so, if the parcel is connected. It is not a list of parcels that would be able to access public water if the proposed water main connection is constructed. Only two parcels, one of which is owned by the Applicant, would be able to realistically access public water post-Project construction—not seven. Page | LWRP Consistency - 3 Rev5 DEIS: “The proposed action also includes the replacement of an existing individual on-site sanitary system with an I/A OWTS, and the installation of one additional I/A OWTS to accommodate all sanitary waste in accordance with SCDHS requirements. As the proposed action would replace and upgrade an existing conventional septic system with an I/A OWTS and install an additional I/A OWTS, the proposed sanitary system would reduce nitrogen loading and be more protective of groundwater quality than continuing to utilize the existing conventional septic system” (DEIS Table 31, p. 181). Response: The installation of an existing on-site sanitary system with an I/A OWTS to “reduce nitrogen loading and be more protective of groundwater quality than continuing to utilize the existing conventional septic system.” However, as noted elsewhere in the DEIS, in its discussion of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, the DEIS notes that “as of Resolution No. 702-2020 adopted on October 16, 2020, I/A OWTS are required for new or expanded single-family residences and new ‘other construction’ projects effective on July 1, 2021” (emphasis added) (p.50). In other words, while replacement of the existing on-site sanitary system is consistent with the LWRP, the Project is legally required to install an I/A OWTS. The replacement of the existing system with an I/A OWTS is not contingent upon Project approval. The Planning Board should determine if the applicant intends to replace the existing system even if the proposed Project does not proceed. DEIS: “The proposed project seeks to expand the business services of SYC to meet an unmet demand for indoor heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island” (DEIS Table 31, p. 181). Response: The DEIS does not include any information demonstrating the existence of an “unmet demand.” The DEIS notes elsewhere that the demand for “indoor heated winter storage of yachts” is not limited to the east end of Long Island but rather, that the Project is intended to also serve “other owners on Long Island, Westchester County, and in the States of Connecticut and New Jersey” (pp. ii, xxviii, 20, 278). DEIS: “According to the applicant, this investment in additional yacht storage would ensure this marina continues to operate for many years to come as a working marina and not succumb to the pressures of transitioning to residential with private waterfront use, or a hotel, motel or restaurant development which are all permitted by special exception use permit (emphasis added)” (DEIS Table 31, p. 181). Response: The preparers of the DEIS are clear that they are relying on the unsupported opinion of the Applicant. There is no explanation as to why the default uses described by the Applicant would be less desirable. As the DEIS notes, those uses are not inevitable if the Project is not approved, because they would require special exception use permits which cannot be guaranteed. The discussion of the No- Build alternative in the DEIS makes no mention of any of this. Nor does the DEIS include any discussion Page | LWRP Consistency - 4 Rev5 of the impacts associated with the possibility that the Project might become economically unviable. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 1. LWRP Policy 2: Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold. DEIS: “There are no known historic or archaeological resources on or adjacent to the subject property that would be adversely impacted by the proposed action” (DEIS Table 31, p. 181). Response: This statement is both incorrect and misleading. The Project will not result in the preservation of any historic resource. In addition, while no historic properties are “on or adjacent” to the Project site, two properties eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places—the Old Mill Restaurant and the Old Water Tower—may be adversely affected by vibration from Project-associated construction truck traffic. DEIS: “. . . the NYS OPRHP has issued a determination of no impact upon cultural resources (see Section 3.11.2 and Appendix T of this DEIS)” (DEIS Table 31, p. 181). Response: This statement is incorrect. The OPRHP correspondence in Appendix T (labeled “Historic Signoff SHPO” dated July 29, 2021 indicated that OPRHP had not yet completed its review of the archeological studies prepared for the Project. On January 24, 2022, OPRHP advised the NYSDEC that it was “still evaluating the project’s potential to impact historic architectural resources.” On April 8, 2022, OPRHP advised they have “concerns regarding potential impacts to historic architectural resources as a result of vibrations from construction vehicles” (DEIS Appendix T). As of March 2023, OPRHP has not indicated that their concerns have been addressed. Although OPRHP’s January 24, 2022 correspondence (DEIS Appendix T) indicated that, in their opinion, “no additional archaeological investigation is needed,” a careful analysis of information in the archeological survey reports prepared for the Project (DEIS Appendix T) suggests that this conclusion was premature.1 It is the Planning Board, not OPRHP, that has ultimate responsibility for determining if potential impacts to archeological sites have been adequately addressed. The Project is not consistent with Policy 2. LWRP Policy 3: Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. DEIS: “The proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the visual quality or scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold.” Response: As noted above, and in comments on the inadequacy of the visual impact assessment included in the DEIS, this statement cannot be supported. The Project does nothing to enhance visual 1 See accompanying comments relating to potential impacts to archeological resources. Page | LWRP Consistency - 5 Rev5 quality or protect scenic resources. The DEIS acknowledges that the Project will have a visual impact, but qualifies this by saying that the impact “would not be significant as depicted by the photo- simulations . . .” which, as noted in other comments, are not just misleading, they were not properly prepared, and cannot be used to assess visual impacts. As demonstrated in photographs accompanying these comments, the Project likely will have a significant visual impact. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 3. LWRP Policy 4: Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. DEIS: “Sea level rise projections discussed in Section 2.3.2 would not inundate the subject property and impacts from sea level rise and storm inundation are concentrated at the bulkhead. Additionally, if a 16-inch rise in groundwater elevation occurred, the drainage infrastructure proposed would be supplemented with shallow drainage structures to accommodate stormwater runoff” (DEIS p. 182). Response: The DEIS has based its analyses on a potential sea level rise of 16 inches (or 1.33± feet) by 2050 which, per 6 NYCRR 490 is considered a “medium”2 projection. The DEIS considers this “reasonable.” A more conservative analysis using a “'High-medium” projection assuming a sea level rise of 21 inches, or a “high” projection of 30 inches, representing a possible “worst-case” scenario should have been used. While these alternate scenarios are noted in the DEIS (p.105, Table 16) they are excluded from analyses.3 The Project does nothing to minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 4. LWRP Policy 5: Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. DEIS: “As the proposed action would replace and upgrade an existing septic system with an I/A OWTS and install an additional I/A OWTS, the proposed sanitary system would reduce nitrogen loading and be more protective of groundwater quality than continuing to utilize the existing conventional septic system” (DEIS p. 182). Response: While this aspect of the Project is consistent with the LWRP, it should be noted that replacement of the existing septic system with an I/A OWTS is not contingent upon Project approval. The applicant could install an I/A OWTS system now, and has chosen not to do so. 2“Medium projection” is the amount of sea level rise that is about as likely as not (the mean of the 25th and 75th percentiles of ClimAID model outputs) to be exceeded by the specified time interval (6 NYCRR 490.3[n]). “High-medium projection” is the amount of sea-level rise that is unlikely (the 75th percentile of ClimAID model outputs) to be exceeded by the specified time interval (6 NYCRR 490.3[h]). “High projection” is the amount of sea-level rise that is associated with high rates of melt of land-based ice and is very unlikely (the 90th percentile of ClimAID model outputs) to be exceeded by the specified time interval (6 NYCRR 490.3[i]). 3 A more detailed discussion is included in comments on how the project could be affected by sea level change. Page | LWRP Consistency - 6 Rev5 DEIS: “The proposed stormwater management controls include both structural infiltration (on-site leaching pools) and non-structural methods (pervious gravel)” (DEIS p. 182). Response: The DEIS states that the “recommended separation distance to groundwater for sanitary leaching fields is three feet” (emphasis added). This is actually a requirement of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The DEIS has concluded that Proposed Sanitary System No. 2 and Drainage Leaching Field 3.0 would be separated from groundwater by exactly 3.0 feet (DEIS Table 17). In other words, the system, as designed, would barely be compliant on day one of operation, and would become non-compliant should there be any future increase in sea levels. DEIS: “The proposed irrigation system would implement smart irrigation controls to reduce or eliminate the use of the irrigation system during periods of rain. The irrigation system would be installed with a drip line to prevent evaporation as well as rain sensors so as to not go on while it is raining.” Response: While this aspect of the Project is consistent with the LWRP, it should be noted that installation of smart irrigation controls and rains sensors is not contingent upon Project approval. The Applicant could upgrade the existing irrigation system now, and has chosen not to do so. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 5. LWRP Policy 6: Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold’s ecosystem. DEIS: “To mitigate the impacts to the forest edge, the Applicant will plant 27,333 SF 4 of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover along the new forest edge. This planted area is approximately 20-30 feet wide and will include dense, multi-layered plantings (i.e., plants that at maturity will occupy understory, and canopy-levels) with abundant conifer trees (i.e., 86 pitch pine trees) to minimize light penetration into the new forest.” Response: This statement in the DEIS acknowledges that that the Project will impact the forest edge. It is misleading in that it does not indicate that it is the Town-owned Mill Creek Preserve that will be adversely impacted. Although discussed elsewhere in the DEIS, the discussion of LWRP consistency 1) makes no mention of the more than 600 trees with an average DBH of 12.8 inches, and estimated heights of 50- 80 feet, that will be destroyed as part of the Project, and 2) fails to note that the “abundant” (86) pitch pines proposed to offset this loss will be 4-5 foot high and only a few inches in diameter. The Proposed Landscape Plan in Appendix C indicates 4DEIS Appendix N states that “trees will be planted . . . within a 27,333 SF [0.63 acres] planting area along the new forest edge,” but does not indicate a source for this number. The DEIS repeats this number more than a dozen times. The new plantings will be placed adjacent to the top of the proposed 875-foot long retaining wall. The project landscaping plan indicates that the planting area will extend approximately 20 feet beyond the ends of the retaining wall. Assuming a 30-foot width for the planting area, this yields a planting area of 0.63 acres. However, as noted above, the planting area as shown on project plans is closer to 15 feet wide, yielding an area of approximately 0.32 acres. Page | LWRP Consistency - 7 Rev5 that the planted area will be closer to 15 feet in width, rather than 20-30 feet, and will consist of a single staggered row of new trees planted 13 feet on-center. This will do little to “minimize light penetration into the new forest.” DEIS: “After establishment of these natural vegetation areas located landward of the proposed retaining wall, the total forest area on the property will increase from 11.76±-acres to 12.39±- acres.” Response: This statement is misleading in that it refers only to the area “landward of the proposed retaining wall” and does not represent total forest loss associated with Project construction. According to text and tables in DEIS Appendix N (Ecological Conditions and Impact Report) and the DEIS (p.115) the Project parcel contains 12.60 acres of coastal oak-beech forest and 4.67 acres of successional southern hardwoods. Both Appendix N (Table 6) and the DEIS (Table 25) indicate that the Project will destroy 4.32 acres of the former, and 1.19 acres of the latter. This equates to a loss of 5.51 acres. This loss would be somewhat offset by new plantings along the forest edge at the top of the proposed retaining wall. The DEIS states that these new plantings will cover 27,333 SF. This equates to 0.63 acres, giving a net loss of 4.88 acres in forest area on the Project parcel.5 This significant loss of forest is not consistent with LWRP policy to “protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold’s ecosystem.” DEIS: “Additionally, the Applicant will contribute fifty (50) native trees (10-gallon container typical 1-inch caliper, 5-6 feet tall) for installation at high-priority sites with the Town of Southold, as identified by the Town Tree Committee, to enhance and beautify public grounds.” Response: While not inconsistent with the LWRP, this proposed mitigation measure falls far short of compensating for the loss of more than 600 mature trees. As described in the DEIS, the cost of installation will have to be borne by the Town of Southold. DEIS: “Furthermore, the proposed action would include erosion and sedimentation control measures to be undertaken prior to and during construction and would include, at minimum, stockpile protection, minimizing the extent and duration of exposed areas, installation of sediment barriers and sediment traps (silt fencing), and the construction and maintenance of a stabilized construction entrance to prevent soil and loose debris from being tracked onto local roads.” Response: The DEIS indicates that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared in accordance with the requirements and specifications of NYSDEC SPDES General Permit No. GP-0-20-001 and Chapter 236 "Stormwater Management” of the Southold Town Code. While a completed SWPP is not required as part of the SEQRA process, there is at least one aspect of the Project that is of special concern because it is possible that routine erosion 5 As noted above in fn3, the actual area of new plantings will be approximately half as large. As a result, the net forest area loss will be closer to 5.19 acres. Page | LWRP Consistency - 8 Rev5 and sediment control measures may not be able to adequately protect the ecosystem from damage. A concrete washout area is shown on the Project’s erosion and sediment control plan. It would be located just west of the southwest corner of existing marina building No. 8, approximately 125 feet from Mattituck Creek. Given that the Project will require more than 5,000 cubic yards of concrete to be delivered, a significant amount of washout water will be generated. NYSDEC SPDES General Permit No. GP-0-20-001 prohibits the discharge of wastewater from concrete washout.6 Given the close proximity to Mattituck Inlet the Planning Board should require the applicant to demonstrate that washout water would not be discharged or flow to Mattituck Creek. Until this can be reasonably assured, the Project cannot be considered consistent with the LWRP. The Applicant’s proposed mitigation falls far short compensating for the significant impacts on the local ecosystem. Nothing in the proposed Project will “Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold’s ecosystem.” The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 6. LWRP Policy 7: Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. DEIS: “The Air Quality Report (see Appendix S) concluded that long-term air quality impacts would be inconsequential as the addition of stationary emission sources is not proposed and vehicular traffic due to the implementation of the proposed action would be minimal. Response: The Air Quality Report also concluded that short-term air quality impacts “may occur during the excavation phase of the project.” The statement that stationary emission sources are not proposed is incorrect. The proposed storage buildings will be heated by propane. Although the heating source is not identified in the DEIS, one will be required, and it will be an emission source. DEIS: “Additionally, the existing CCE FLUPSY units would continue to operate as part of the proposed action. This program has a beneficial impact on carbon sequestration and therefore improves the water and air quality of the Town of Southold. As such, the proposed action would be consistent with the intent of this policy.” Response: DEIS Table 31 makes no reference to the fact that because the Project will destroy more than 600 mature trees, with an associated loss of sequestered carbon, it will have an adverse effect on air quality. The DEIS states that “the projected 1.5 million clams harvested annually [from the CCE FLUPSY units] have the potential to sequester 9,680 lbs. [less than 5 tons] of carbon” (p.273). However, in discussing LWRP consistency no mention is made of the loss of more than 350 tons of sequestered carbon as a result of forest clearing, or the fact that the carbon sequestration associated with operation of the CCE FLUPSY units affects only carbon in seawater and has no effect on air quality. The proposed Project will adversely affect air quality in the Town of Southold. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 7. 6 The Southold Town Code is silent on the issue of concrete washout discharges. Page | LWRP Consistency - 9 Rev5 LWRP Policy 8: Minimize environmental degradation in the Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. DEIS: As part of the proposed action, all wastes generated on-site would be handled in the same manner, and no significant change is expected for the additional boat storage. As such, the proposed action would be consistent with the intent of this policy.” Response: The increase in yacht maintenance and repair work generated by the Project will be result in a proportional increase in hazardous waste byproducts from those activities. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 8. LWRP Policy 9: Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. DEIS: This policy is not applicable to the proposed action as the existing marina is for private membership to utilize the facilities, which would remain as part of the proposed action. The proposed action would not establish public access to Mattituck Creek. However, the proposed action would respond to an industry demand for local seasonal storage for recreational boaters. The proposed Project seeks to expand the business services of SYC to meet an unmet demand for indoor heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island. This supports an existing recreational use within the Town. As such, while this policy is not applicable, the proposed action would be consistent with the intent of this policy. Response: Rather than being “inapplicable,” the proposed action is inconsistent with Policy 9 as it does not provide for “public use.” The DEIS states that the Project is responding to “an industry demand” by “expand[ing] the business services of SYC . . .”, but includes no information to demonstrate the existence of the “demand . . . on the east end of Long Island.” There is no aspect of providing “winter storage” that would result in “recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold”. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 9. LWRP Policy 10: Protect the Town of Southold’s water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. DEIS: The proposed action would expand and enhance an existing maritime and water-dependent use. The proposed development would respond to an industry demand for recreational boaters. The proposed Project would expand the business services of SYC to meet an unmet demand for indoor heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island. The proposed development is a suitable location for such use as it is an expansion of an existing maritime use and it is zoned for such use. As such, the proposed action would be consistent with the intent of this policy. Response: The proposed Project is not consistent with Policy 10 as it does nothing to “protect the Town of Southold’s water-dependent uses.” As noted above, the Applicant has provided Page | LWRP Consistency - 10 Rev5 no information to demonstrate the existence of the “demand for heated storage on the east end of Long Island.” The Project location is suitable only in that it is permitted under existing zoning.7 The location is not suitable from an environmental perspective. The arrival and departure of large yachts via Mattituck Inlet can only have a deleterious impact, however small, on the Inlet. The Project will do nothing to “Protect the Town of Southold’s water-dependent uses.” The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 10. LWRP Policy 11: Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold. DEIS: “SYC is a designated host for the CCE Marine Program for shellfish restoration and hosts 8 FLUPSY units. . . SYC is committed to being a FLUPSY host through 2030. These clams aid in the enhancement and restoration of the shellfish fishery within the Town of Southold and subsequently Long Island.”8 Response: The DEIS contains no documentation of the Applicant’s commitment to the Cornell Marine Program through 2030. Appendix C (Memorandum of Understanding Between Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) of Suffolk County and Strong’s Yacht Center [June 5, 2019])9 to DEIS Appendix M (Boat Vessel Study) is clear in that the applicant “has the right to terminate [the] agreement for any reason.” The agreement itself indicates that it terminated on December 1, 2020. The proposed Project does not include any provision for increased support of the shellfish restoration program, which is totally independent from the proposed Project, and which would presumably continue even if the Project does not proceed. The Project does nothing to “Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold.” The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 11. LWRP Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. DEIS: “This policy is not applicable to the proposed action as no impacts to agricultural lands are anticipated.” Response: The proposed Project does not protect agricultural lands or advance this policy. LWRP Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. 7 Questions have been raised concerning zoning status of the Project parcel (see zooming comment, below). 8 The DEIS states that “SYC provides funding to the CCE Marine Program to operate and maintain the units” (p.3). However, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the CCE Marine Program and the applicant calls for the CCE Marine Program to “Compensate the Partner [applicant/SYC] for electricity and the utilization of dock slips. . . The cost of the electricity and dock slips will be $10,715.00.” This was presumably for the period covered by the MOU (June 5, 2019 through December 1, 2020). 9 The table of contents for Appendix M lists the title for Appendix C as “Memorandum of Understanding Between Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) of Suffolk County and Strong’s Yacht Center (June 5, 2019) and Correspondence from CCE” (emphasis added). No correspondence from CCE is included in Appendix M. Page | LWRP Consistency - 11 Rev5 DEIS: This policy is not applicable to the proposed action as there would be no development of energy or mineral resources. Response: Policy 13 is not limited to “development,” it clearly refers to “use” as well. Project haul trucks will travel a minimum of 135,000 miles (9000 trips x 15 miles). All trucks manufactured after 2014 are required to have a fuel economy of at least 7.2 miles per gallon. This means that Project haul trucks, together with other Project construction equipment will use approximately 15,000 to 20,000 gallons, or more, of diesel fuel. This expenditure of energy resources for a Project designed to serve a very limited number of individuals is not an “appropriate use.” The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 13.